030. Management Prerogative; TRANSFERG.R. No. 182848 October 5, 2011EMIRATE SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, INC. a! RO"ERTO A. YAN, Petitioners, vs.G#ENDA M. MENESE, Respondent.D E C I S I O N"RION, J.:Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari1 which assails the decision

and the resolution! of the Court of "ppeals #C"$ rendered on %e&ruar' (, ))( and *a' 1+, ))(, respectivel', in C",-.R. SP. No. 1))).!.+/he "ntecedents/he facts of the case are su00ari1ed &elow.On 2une 3, ))1, respondent -lenda *. *enese #*enese$ filed a co0plaint for constructive dis0issal4 ille5al reduction of salaries and allowances4 separation pa'4 refund of contri&ution to cash &ond4 overti0e, holida', rest da' and pre0iu0 pa'4 da0a5es4 and attorne'6s fees a5ainst the petitioners, E0irate Securit' and *aintenance S'ste0s, Inc. #a5enc'$ and its -eneral *ana5er, Ro&ert ". 7an #7an$.*enese alle5ed in the co0pulsor' ar&itration proceedin5s that on "pril 1, 1888, the a5enc' en5a5ed her services as pa'roll and &illin5 cler9. She was assi5ned to the a5enc'6s securit' detach0ent at the Philippine -eneral :ospital #P-:$. She was 5iven a 0onthl' salar' of P8,)).)) and an allowance of P,3)).)), for a total of P11,.)).)) in co0pensation. Effective *a' ))1, her allowance was alle5edl' reduced to P1,3)).)) without notice, and P1)).)) was deducted fro0 her salar' ever' 0onth as her contri&ution to a cash &ond which lasted throu5hout her e0plo'0ent. She was re;uired to wor9 seven #.$ da's a wee9, fro0 (e of *rs. ?ioleta -. Dapula #Dapula$ the new chief of the Securit' Division of the @niversit' of the Philippines #@P$ *anila and P-:. *enese raised the 0atter with 7an who told her that the a5enc' was in the process of esta&lishin5 5oodwill with Dapula, so it had to sacrifice her position to acco00odate Dapula6s re;uest to hire Claro.*enese clai0ed that she was told not to worr' &ecause if she was still interested in wor9in5 with the a5enc', she could still &e retained as a lad' 5uard with a salar' e;uivalent to the 0ini0u0 wa5e. She would then &e detailed to another detach0ent &ecause Dapula did not li9e to see her around an'0ore. If the offer was accepta&le to her, she should report to the a5enc'6s personnel officer for the issuance of the necessar' dut' detail order. *enese thou5ht a&out the offer and soon reali1ed that she was actuall' &ein5 de0oted in ran9 and salar'. She eventuall' decided to decline the offer. She continued reportin5 to the P-: detach0ent and perfor0ed her usual functions as if nothin5 happened.*enese alle5ed that at this Auncture, Claro reported at the a5enc'6s P-: detach0ent and perfor0ed the functions she was doin5. She &ewailed that thereafter she continuousl' received harass0ent calls and letters. She was also pu&licl' hu0iliated and &adl' treated at the detach0ent. /he a5enc', throu5h Securit' Officer "lton "ca&, prohi&ited her fro0 usin5 the office co0puter. On *a' 1(, ))1, 2ose Dante Chan, the a5enc'6s P-: detach0ent co00ander, arro5antl' told her to leave P-:. "5ain on *a' 3, ))1, Chan shouted at her and told her to pac9 her thin5s and to leave i00ediatel', and not to return to the detach0ent an'0ore4 otherwise, she would &e ph'sicall' driven out of the office.Still not satisfied with what the' did, the petitioners alle5edl' withheld her salar' for *a' 1B,!1, ))1. She clai0ed that the petitioners dis0issed her fro0 the service without Aust cause and due process./he petitioners, for their part, denied lia&ilit'. /he' alle5ed that on *a' (, ))1, Dapula infor0ed the a5enc' inwritin5,3 throu5h 7an, that she had &een receivin5 nu0erous co0plaints fro0 securit' 5uards and other a5enc' e0plo'ees a&out *enese6s unprofessional conduct. She told the petitioners that she was not toleratin5 *enese6s ne5ative wor9 attitude despite the fact that she is the wife of Special Police *aAor Divino *enese who is a 0e0&er of the @P *anila police force, and that as a 0atter of polic' and out of delicade1a, she does not condone nepotis0 in her division.On the &asis of Dapula6s letter, 7an sent *enese a 0e0orandu0 dated *a' 1B, ))1,B instructin5 her to report to the a5enc'6s head office and, there and then, discussed with her Dapula6s letter. 7an infor0ed *enese that upon Dapula6s re;uest, she would &e transferred to another assi5n0ent which would not involve an' de0otion in ran9 or di0inution in her salar' and other &enefits. "lthou5h *enese said that she would thin9a&out the 0atter, the petitioners were surprised to receive su00ons fro0 the la&or ar&iter re5ardin5 the co0plaint./he Co0pulsor' "r&itration Rulin5sIn a decision dated *arch 1+, )),. Ca&or "r&iter 2ovencio CC. *a'or, 2r. declared *enese to have &een constructivel' dis0issed. :e found the petitioners wantin5 in 5ood faith in transferrin5 *enese to another detach0ent as she would &e sufferin5 a de0otion in ran9 and a di0inution in pa'. "ccordin5l', he ordered the petitioners to i00ediatel' reinstate *enese and, solidaril', to pa' her full &ac9wa5es of P(!,++!..3 #latest co0putation$4 PBB,8+.)) in 0onetar' &enefits4 P3),))).)) and P),))).)) in 0oral and e=e0plar' da0a5es, respectivel'4 and attorne'6s fees of P13,)!B..+./he petitioners appealed to the National Ca&or Relations Co00ission #NCRC$. On Septe0&er !), ))!, the NCRC Second Division issued a resolution( 5rantin5 the appeal and reversin5 the la&or ar&iter6s decision. It ruled that *enese was not constructivel' dis0issed &ut was 0erel' transferred to another detach0ent. It opined that the transfer was a valid e=ercise of the petitioners6 0ana5e0ent prero5ative. :owever, it ruled thatdespite *enese6s refusal to accept the transfer, she cannot &e 0ade lia&le for a&andon0ent as her refusal was &ased on her honest &elief that she was &ein5 constructivel' dis0issed. /he NCRC ordered *enese, at her option, to i00ediatel' report to the a5enc'6s head office and the a5enc' to accept her &ac9 to wor9. It a&solved 7an fro0 lia&ilit', and deleted the award of &ac9wa5es, overti0e pa' and da0a5es.On Octo&er (, ))!, *enese filed a partial 0otion for reconsideration8 of the NCRC resolution and later #on 2une 1., ))3$, a 0otion to recall the entr' of Aud50ent of Octo&er !1, ))!. On 2une 1, ))., the NCRC rendered a resolution1) settin5 aside the entr' of Aud50ent and den'in5 *enese6s partial 0otion for reconsideration./he Petition for Certiorari*enese elevated her case to the C" throu5h a petition for certiorari11 under Rule B3 of the Rules of Court. In the 0ain, she ar5ued that the a5enc' was in &ad faith when it issued the 0e0oranda dated *a' 1B, ))1,1 *a' , ))11! and *a' (, ))1,1+ orderin5 her transfer fro0 the P-: detach0ent to the a5enc'6s head office. She posited that it was a plo' to create a vacanc' in the detach0ent to acco00odate the entr' of Claro, Dapula6s prot>5>e. She re5arded the transfer as a re0oval fro0 her position at P-: D a constructive dis0issal./he a5enc', in re&uttal, posited that *enese was not ille5all' dis0issed, &ut was 0erel' transferred to its head office in response to the re;uest of the new head of the @P,P-: securit' division for the transfer. /he action, it 0aintained, was a valid e=ercise of its 0ana5e0ent prero5ative. /hus, *enese was 5uilt' of a&andonin5 her e0plo'0ent when she refused to report for wor9 at her new postin5./he C" Decision/he C" 5ranted the petition in its decision of %e&ruar' (, ))(.13 It set aside the assailed resolutions of the NCRC and reinstated the *arch 1+, )) decision of the la&or ar&iter."s the la&or ar&iter did, the C" found *enese to have &een constructivel', and therefore ille5all', dis0issed. Itnoted that the 0e0oranda1B on *enese6s transfer were pro0pted &' Dacula6s letter, dated *a' (, ))1,1. to 7an, which contained alle5ations on *enese6s supposed unprofessional conduct and involve0ent in nepotis0.It further noted that when 7an as9ed Dapula in writin51( to provide the a5enc' with docu0entsEevidence that would support her alle5ations, she failed to do so. /he C" thus concluded that the reasons for *enese6s transfer did not e=ist or that no su&stantial evidence was presented in that re5ard./he C" &rushed aside the petitioners6 ar5u0ent that it was their prero5ative to transfer *enese fro0 the a5enc'6s P-: detach0ent to its head office at Orti5as "venue, *andalu'on5 Cit'. Rel'in5 on applica&le Aurisprudence, the appellate court pointed out that while it is the 0ana5e0ent6s prero5ative to transfer an e0plo'ee fro0 one office to another within the &usiness esta&lish0ent, it is not without li0itation. It 0ust &e e=ercised in such a wa' that there is no de0otion in ran9 or di0inution in pa', &enefits and other privile5es. Otherwise, the transfer a0ounts to a constructive dis0issal, as correctl' pointed out &' the la&or ar&iter in his decision of *arch 1+, )).18 In this li5ht, the C" held that the petitioners failed to prove that *enese a&andoned her e0plo'0ent./he C" sustained all the other findin5s of the la&or ar&iter. On the whole, it ruled that the NCRC 0isappreciated the evidence in the case. /he petitioners 0oved for reconsideration, &ut the C" denied the 0otion in its resolution of *a' 1+, ))(.)/he Petitioners6 Case"side fro0 the petition itself,1 the petitioners filed a repl' to *enese6s co00ent

and a 0e0orandu0! wherethe' as9ed for a reversal of the assailed C" rulin5s on the 5round that the C" 5ravel' erred ine. In short, the a5enc' wanted to create a vacanc' for Claro, the prot>5>e. Confronted with this clear intent of the petitioners, we cannot see how *enese6s transfer could &e considered a valid e=ercise of 0ana5e0ent prero5ative. "s *enese ri5htl' put it, her transferwas ar&itraril' done, 0otivated no less &' ill will and &ad faith.In Blue Dair' Corporation v. NCRC,!8 the Court stressed as a 0atter of principle that the 0ana5erial prero5ative to transfer personnel 0ust &e e=ercised without a&use of discretion, &earin5 in 0ind the &asic ele0ents of Austice and fair pla'. :avin5 the ri5ht should not &e confused with the 0anner in which that ri5ht is e=ercised. /hus, it should not &e used as a su&terfu5e &' the e0plo'er to 5et rid of Gan undesira&le wor9er.G *easured a5ainst this &asic precept, the petitioners undou&tedl' a&used their discretion or authorit' in transferrin5 *enese to the a5enc'6s head office. She had &eco0e Gundesira&leG &ecause she stood in the wa'of Claro6s entr' into the P-: detach0ent. *enese had to 5o, thus the need for a prete=t to 5et rid of her. /he re;uest of a client for the transfer &eca0e the overridin5 co00and that prevailed over the lac9 of &asis for the transfer.He cannot &la0e *enese for refusin5 7an6s offer to &e transferred.1avvphi1 Not onl' was the transfer ar&itrar' and done in &ad faith, it would also result, as *enese feared, in a de0otion in ran9 and a di0inution in pa'. "lthou5h 7an infor0ed *enese that G&ased on the re;uest of the client, she will &e transferred to another assi5n0ent which however will not involve an' de0otion in ran9 nor di0inution in her salaries and other &enefits,G+) the offer was such as to invite reluctance and suspicion as it was couched in a ver' 5eneral 0anner. He find credi&le *enese6s su&0ission on this point, i.e., that under the offered transfer< #1$ she wouldhold the position of lad' 5uard and #$ she would &e paid in accordance with the statutor' 0ini0u0 wa5e, or fro0 P11,.).)) to P.,3)).)).In these li5hts, *enese6s transfer constituted a constructive dis0issal as it had no Austifia&le &asis and entaileda de0otion in ran9 and a di0inution in pa' for her. %or a transfer not to &e considered a constructive dis0issal, the e0plo'er 0ust &e a&le to show that the transfer is for a valid reason, entails no di0inution in theter0s and conditions of e0plo'0ent, and 0ust &e unreasona&l' inconvenient or preAudicial to the e0plo'ee. Ifthe e0plo'er fails to 0eet these standards, the e0plo'ee6s transfer shall a0ount, at the ver' least, to constructive dis0issal.+1 /he petitioners, unfortunatel' for the0, failed to co0e up to these standards.In declarin5 *enese6s transfer to &e in the valid e=ercise of the petitioners6 0ana5e0ent prero5ative, the NCRC 5rossl' 0isappreciated the evidence and, therefore, 5ravel' a&used its discretion in closin5 its e'es to the patent inAustice co00itted on *enese. It co0pletel' disre5arded the o&vious presence of &ad faith in *enese6s transfer. Ca&or Austice de0ands that *enese &e awarded 0oral and e=e0plar' da0a5es+ and, for havin5 &een constrained to liti5ate in order to protect her ri5hts, attorne'6s fees.+!7an6s solidar' lia&ilit'7an had &een aware all the ti0e of the utter lac9 of a valid reason for *enese6s transfer. :e had &een aware all the ti0e that Dapula6s char5es a5ainst *enese D the ostensi&le reason for the transfer D were none=istent as Dapula failed to su&stantiate the char5es. :e was ver' 0uch a part of the fla5rant and duplicitous 0ove to 5et rid of *enese to 5ive wa' to Claro, Dapula6s prot>5>e.Based on the facts, 7an is as 5uilt' as the a5enc' in causin5 the transfer that was underta9en in &ad faith and in a wanton and oppressive 0anner. /hus, he should &e solidaril' lia&le with the a5enc' for *enese6s 0onetar' awards./he overti0e pa' awardHhile the la&or ar&iter declared that *enese6s clai0 for overti0e pa' is unre&utted++ and, indeed, nowhere in the petitioners6 position paper did the' controvert *enese6s clai0, we hold that the clai0 0ust still &e su&stantiated. In -lo&al Incorporated v. Co00issioner "tien1a,+3 a clai0 for overti0e pa' will not &e 5ranted for want of factual and le5al &asis. In this respect, the records indicate that the la&or ar&iter 5ranted *enese6s clai0 for holida' pa', rest da' and pre0iu0 pa' on the &asis of pa'rolls.+B /here is no such proof in support of *enese6s clai0 for overti0e pa' other than her contention that she wor9ed fro0 (